Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think you quoted me out of context. I wasn't objecting to the possible presence of Soviet Russia. I was saying Byzantines > Soviet Union would be a weird chain, given that the Soviet Union suppressed the Russian Orthodox Church.

Maybe makes sense as a cultural response to a crisis, though? Drop your state religion in favour of a state ideology instead as you transition into a new era.

 

[Josephias]

It must be recognized that if Spain had not reached the present, the world would not have mops.

Modern Spain unique ability is add sticks to things... XD

There could be place for a modern Spain, yet the Hausgburg Hispanic Empire (with Conquistadores or Tercios) is clearly Exploration Age (discovery of new lands, territorial expansion). One could argue certain parts of Borbonic spain (Charles III, the Alphonses) and of Republican spain might fit the Industrialization/Progress topic of Modern age, and this could arge for inclusion of a different version of Spain. Key point for me to identify if it is viable is: ¿can we identify relevant uniques for these period that make an interesting modern age, modern-age mechanics Civ? (Guerrilla?, Royal Manufactories, perhaps?,...).

While it is true post-Hausgburg Spain did not have the same power than before, it is also true it still provided small sparks of genius that could be used for a modern Civ: a model for monarchic-liberal constitutions in 1812, support to US independence and negotiations with native americans, early prototypes of remote controlled boats, submarines, rotor-based A/C (autogyro) and even space suits...(and of course mops and some of the best lollypop versions - and even coca-cola origin is claimed in spanish kola-coca XD). Still having much other Modern european big-weight contenders (France, Britain, Prussia, Italy....) i'm afraid it would be relegated to DLC down the line if any.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Modern Spain unique ability is add sticks to things... XD

There could be place for a modern Spain, yet the Hausgburg Hispanic Empire (with Conquistadores or Tercios) is clearly Exploration Age (discovery of new lands, territorial expansion). One could argue certain parts of Borbonic spain (Charles III, the Alphonses) and of Republican spain might fit the Industrialization/Progress topic of Modern age, and this could arge for inclusion of a different version of Spain. Key point for me to identify if it is viable is: ¿can we identify relevant uniques for these period that make an interesting modern age, modern-age mechanics Civ? (Guerrilla?, Royal Manufactories, perhaps?,...).

While it is true post-Hausgburg Spain did not have the same power than before, it is also true it still provided small sparks of genius that could be used for a modern Civ: a model for monarchic-liberal constitutions in 1812, support to US independence and negotiations with native americans, early prototypes of remote controlled boats, submarines, rotor-based A/C (autogyro) and even space suits...(and of course mops and some of the best lollypop versions - and even coca-cola origin is claimed in spanish kola-coca XD). Still having much other Modern european big-weight contenders (France, Britain, Prussia, Italy....) i'm afraid it would be relegated to DLC down the line if any.

For the exploration era Castilians fit, even on the chronicles about the conquest of the Americas Spaniards mostly presented themselves as Castilians.

Modern Spain can be a cultural civ, you know with figures like Francisco de Goya, Antoni Gaudí, Joan Miró, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dalí. All with the Sagrada Familia as their wonder, just hope Catalans dont take it in a wrong way.

 

[El Castellano]

Modern Spain unique ability is add sticks to things... XD

There could be place for a modern Spain, yet the Hausgburg Hispanic Empire (with Conquistadores or Tercios) is clearly Exploration Age (discovery of new lands, territorial expansion). One could argue certain parts of Borbonic spain (Charles III, the Alphonses) and of Republican spain might fit the Industrialization/Progress topic of Modern age, and this could arge for inclusion of a different version of Spain. Key point for me to identify if it is viable is: ¿can we identify relevant uniques for these period that make an interesting modern age, modern-age mechanics Civ? (Guerrilla?, Royal Manufactories, perhaps?,...).

While it is true post-Hausgburg Spain did not have the same power than before, it is also true it still provided small sparks of genius that could be used for a modern Civ: a model for monarchic-liberal constitutions in 1812, support to US independence and negotiations with native americans, early prototypes of remote controlled boats, submarines, rotor-based A/C (autogyro) and even space suits...(and of course mops and some of the best lollypop versions - and even coca-cola origin is claimed in spanish kola-coca XD). Still having much other Modern european big-weight contenders (France, Britain, Prussia, Italy....) i'm afraid it would be relegated to DLC down the line if any.

I am thinking that we do not know how cultural victory will be in the Modern Age. Perhaps it is a victory based on a tourism mechanic. In that case, a modern Spain could be interesting, since Spain is currently a tourist power, and a good part of its GDP depends on tourism. I don't know if a modern Spain will be in the base game or if it could be part of a DLC. But if they base it in a cultural/tourism style of gameplay, a modern Spain could be a fun option to play. It would also be cool to have President Azaña or King Carlos III of Bourbon as leader. The truth is that I don't know who will be the choosen leader for Spain/Castile in Civ 7. Isabel I? Felipe II? Cervantes?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

There should be an option where, if a civilization successfully manages the crises at the end of an Age, switching to a new civ isn't mandatory. Changing civilizations should only be required if the current one "collapses" at the Age's end due to poorly handling the crises.

and gets bonuses that allow it to stay competitive with the new civs coming online!

one big thing about “keeping the civ” is the civ can’t just be an uncompetitive blob going into an era it’s not primed for. So if this was a mechanic (which i can see the merit of, it seems potentially fun), the bonuses need to make doing it actually worth it and not just a death sentence for the next era

 

[Josephias]

For the exploration era Castilians fit, even on the chronicles about the conquest of the Americas Spaniards mostly presented themselves as Castilians.

Yes, both Castille (adding Conquistadors, as it was the kingdom initially in charge of the American conquest) and Aragon (a Thalassocratic federation itself, more involved in the Mediterranean scenario, starting the alliances with Italy against the Ottomans) would qualify for Exploration Age civs themselves, but that would leave no room for the Haugsburg Spanish Empire (as Normandy seems to discard Tudor England), so I see the possibilities as very unlikely, specially as we have already seen the burgundy cross in screenshots (fighting against the norman lions). I'm afraid that would require an important era rearrangement, or parallel paths (would be funny otherwise having a game were Castille fights Haugsburg Spain fights Aragon... )

 

[moysturfurmer]

Do the Normans really prevent the inclusion of a Tudor Civ though? I mean, yes, strictly speaking it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to have them around in the same Age, instead of one leading into the other, but they’re not being hyper strict with the chronology of everything.

Take Greece and Rome. Evidence suggests they’re both in options of Antiquity, but Rome is the metaphorical bronze cast to Greece’s marble

 

[Krikkit1]

and gets bonuses that allow it to stay competitive with the new civs coming online!

one big thing about “keeping the civ” is the civ can’t just be an uncompetitive blob going into an era it’s not primed for. So if this was a mechanic (which i can see the merit of, it seems potentially fun), the bonuses need to make doing it actually worth it and not just a death sentence for the next era

I’d prefer if on the change they offered you the option of renaming your civ to the new culture or keeping your old name (and city list and flag)

 

[Zaarin]

Do the Normans really prevent the inclusion of a Tudor Civ though? I mean, yes, strictly speaking it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to have them around in the same Age, instead of one leading into the other, but they’re not being hyper strict with the chronology of everything.

Take Greece and Rome. Evidence suggests they’re both in options of Antiquity, but Rome is the metaphorical bronze cast to Greece’s marble

I highly expect we'll see Exploration Age England added at some point.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’d prefer if on the change they offered you the option of renaming your civ to the new culture or keeping your old name (and city list and flag)

i agree, but insofar we're running with the idea that @Xandinho originally posed, I don't think that's necessarily as elegant. What's the point of trying to "keep your civ alive" by beating the crisis if you just adopt another civ and keep the name anyway? Feels like a cop out and not as satisfying.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

One question I haven't seen brought up yet is that of Pacific Island rep in the game

I'm not the most well-educated on the history here, but I feel like a lot of pacific island cultures don't have well-known distinct "eras" as well as some other civs do, and jumping from say, proto-polynesians to tonga to hawaii/maori doesn't seem the most elegant way of doing this.

Likewise, my understanding is that the spread of polynesian peoples across the pacific only happened in what could be called the early part of the age of exploration...so do the borders of the eras get flubbed, or what's the call there?

 

[Zaarin]

One question I haven't seen brought up yet is that of Pacific Island rep in the game

I'm not the most well-educated on the history here, but I feel like a lot of pacific island cultures don't have well-known distinct "eras" as well as some other civs do, and jumping from say, proto-polynesians to tonga to hawaii/maori doesn't seem the most elegant way of doing this.

Likewise, my understanding is that the spread of polynesian peoples across the pacific only happened in what could be called the early part of the age of exploration...so do the borders of the eras get flubbed, or what's the call there?

Given how blurry the edges of the ages are, Samoa or Tonga seem like probably the best options for Antiquity, even though they're "technically" Exploration Age.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

One question I haven't seen brought up yet is that of Pacific Island rep in the game

I'm not the most well-educated on the history here, but I feel like a lot of pacific island cultures don't have well-known distinct "eras" as well as some other civs do, and jumping from say, proto-polynesians to tonga to hawaii/maori doesn't seem the most elegant way of doing this.

Likewise, my understanding is that the spread of polynesian peoples across the pacific only happened in what could be called the early part of the age of exploration...so do the borders of the eras get flubbed, or what's the call there?

I don't think we'll see them in the base game. In a DLC, we might see something like: Antiquity Formosa, Exploration Polynesia, Modern Hawaii / Maori.

Substitute for Polynesia options such as Samoa or Tongo. Substitute for Formosa something from Borneo, Sumatra or Java.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don't think we'll see them in the base game. In a DLC, we might see something like: Antiquity Formosa, Exploration Polynesia, Modern Hawaii / Maori.

Substitute for Polynesia options such as Samoa or Tongo. Substitute for Formosa something from Borneo, Sumatra or Java.

do we have enough depth in historical knowledge for a flavorful austronesian formosa?

I can get behind an ancient Indonesian civ having a line to Srivijaya in Exploration (hwich i prefer to majapahit due to their interaction with the chola), as well as Tonga/Samoa in exploration and then hawaii and/or maori in modern. I don't think that's too much to ask for in a base game with buganda, chola, etc.

 

[Krikkit1]

i agree, but insofar we're running with the idea that @Xandinho originally posed, I don't think that's necessarily as elegant. What's the point of trying to "keep your civ alive" by beating the crisis if you just adopt another civ and keep the name anyway? Feels like a cop out and not as satisfying.

The issue is trying to balance some of the stuff out. By keeping the name, you are still the “Romans” even though you do things differently in 2000 AUC from 500 AUC. (city wall and christian bonuses. instead of roads and republic bonuses)

That means you get pre available balanced game assets. You have other era 3 civs available as well, if you don’t want to continue twice.


The alternative could be extra leader bonuses (say 2-4 each era to replace the civ UA and the UUs and UBs and Unique civics)

But it shouldn’t have any special requirements to keep it if you do.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The issue is trying to balance some of the stuff out. By keeping the name, you are still the “Romans” even though you do things differently in 2000 AUC from 500 AUC. (city wall and christian bonuses. instead of roads and republic bonuses)

That means you get pre available balanced game assets. You have other era 3 civs available as well, if you don’t want to continue twice.


The alternative could be extra leader bonuses (say 2-4 each era to replace the civ UA and the UUs and UBs and Unique civics)

But it shouldn’t have any special requirements to keep it if you do.

yeah, i think this is basically what im saying, ngl.

not sure where we disagree, my understanding was you were suggesting adopting an era 2 civ and just keeping calling it the roman’s, but what you’re saying here seems more similar to what i’m suggesting

 

[Krikkit1]

yeah, i think this is basically what im saying, ngl.

not sure where we disagree, my understanding was you were suggesting adopting an era 2 civ and just keeping calling it the roman’s, but what you’re saying here seems more similar to what i’m suggesting

Actually I am saying “Call an Era 2 civ Romans”, because it requires no game balancing or changing the code that deals with the game. (just UI…which would still be big)

Having “just keep your civ” or “civ in the wrong age” might be Balanced with Leader picks…but actually would be a big change in the feel. and would take more significant actual game coding. Also it might mean no choosing your civ name.

 

[E.C.H]

For what it's worth, I personally have one thing making me doubt we're getting Srivijaya in Civ 7, or Sukhothai too for that matter: the Senior Historian of the game, Andrew Johnson has publicly stated his skepticism towards their regional historical relevancy compared to the status their given. Where and when? Here, nearly two years ago!

Apologies if this has already been brought up recently, just thought it was fun and perhaps an insight, hehe!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For what it's worth, I personally have one thing making me doubt we're getting Srivijaya in Civ 7, or Sukhothai too for that matter: the Senior Historian of the game, Andrew Johnson has publicly stated his skepticism towards their regional historical relevancy compared to the status their given. Where and when? Here, nearly two years ago!

View attachment 701972

Apologies if this has already been brought up recently, just thought it was fun and perhaps an insight, hehe!

i don’t think this is necessarily saying either is irrelevant or unimportant. moreso that we don’t know how important they actually were, but that there’s evidence to suggest that they weren’t as important as various people contend they actually were.

like he mentions, Ramkhamhaeng has appeared in civ despite these questions. No reason to suggest Sukhothai wouldn’t again just because the history is unclear. Like, nothing about that post implies Sukhothai was unimportant, just that it likely wasn’t as significant as the Thai national myth would suggest.

Same with Srivijaya, which has these questions, but could still be significant. He’s a real historian, specialized in that region, and I very much am not, so I can’t refute or support what he’s saying, but the thing I’m most familiar with Srivijaya for is the Chola campaign there and how it became a client state of the Chola empire for a time.

anyway, I don’t think he’s saying either was unimportant, rather that our historical understanding of them is based off of suggestions and potential misunderstandings. of course, if i’ve misread that, i’m sure he’ll pop in and correct us. I’m sure the game will make decisions based on what the best historical understanding of SE Asia is at the current moment.

 

[E.C.H]

i don’t think this is necessarily saying either is irrelevant or unimportant. moreso that we don’t know how important they actually were, but that there’s evidence to suggest that they weren’t as important as various people contend they actually were.

like he mentions, Ramkhamhaeng has appeared in civ despite these questions. No reason to suggest Sukhothai wouldn’t again just because the history is unclear. Like, nothing about that post implies Sukhothai was unimportant, just that it likely wasn’t as significant as the Thai national myth would suggest.

Same with Srivijaya, which has these questions, but could still be significant. He’s a real historian, specialized in that region, and I very much am not, so I can’t refute or support what he’s saying, but the thing I’m most familiar with Srivijaya for is the Chola campaign there and how it became a client state of the Chola empire for a time.

anyway, I don’t think he’s saying either was unimportant, rather that our historical understanding of them is based off of suggestions and potential misunderstandings. of course, if i’ve misread that, i’m sure he’ll pop in and correct us. I’m sure the game will make decisions based on what the best historical understanding of SE Asia is at the current moment.

Fair enough points, perhaps I was a tad indelicate with my words, it's late here, haha. At the very least, he's not exactly endorsing them to my eyes.